NRA Investigating Reports of Firearm Confiscations in Greensburg, Kansas

NRA Investigating Reports of Firearm Confiscations in Greensburg, Kansas

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

The National Rifle Association has received a number of reports of ongoing firearm confiscations in Greensburg, Kansas.

We are currently gathering as much information as possible to verify these claims. If the reports are true, your National Rifle Association will act swiftly to correct this injustice and stop any unconstitutional gun confiscations.

If you have any information regarding gun confiscations in Kansas, or know any law-abiding citizen who has had their firearms confiscated, please contact NRA immediately at 1-800-392-8683. Thank you.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=2953

---------------------------------------------

First it was New Orleans, now it's Kansas...



P.S. Greensburg was the little Kansas town that was all but obliterated by an estimated mile-wide tornado a few days ago...

After saying they'd had reports, they say:

NRA-ILA said:

If the reports are true, your National Rifle Association will act swiftly to correct this injustice and stop any unconstitutional gun confiscations.

Click to expand...

So far, it's hearsay, but it's not going to stop you from building a case.

riffraff said:

First it was New Orleans, now it's Kansas...

Click to expand...

There's not enough yet for them to even report, and certainly not enough to build an angry thread here.

Feel free to take the topic to the Underground

Edit: After additional consideration, I've decided not to close this thread as a preemptive measure after all. Instead, we'll give it a chance to develop, and either survive or fall due to it's actual development.

Keep in mind that the full range of presently available information is contained within the the article which has been quoted fully, and contains nothing concrete other than "some reports". A Google search of news articles doesn't indicate the reports have been noted or reported by any others. There's little there on which to draw a conclusion or a concern.

Recently in Montana SB309 passed the house and senate, and is on its way to the governors desk. It will prevent firearms from being confiscated during an emergency. There are a lot of states passing these laws, and it sounds like something that they all need.

Every good citizen should be able to protect themselves especially in situations like these.

Speaking from the point of view of the law enforcement.... DISCLAIMER: I am not one, but can put myself in their shoes.

If there is a general emergency caused by the devastation of a city AND there is sufficient law enforcement that there is no indication that the general public is in harm's way AND.....


Then I might consider the value VS risk of despondent, distraught, upset and angry newly homeless people carrying firearms. It may make sense to ask law abiding folks to put aside their firearms and trust the authorities to protect them while the infrastructure is being rebuilt. Since it's a scientific fact that overcrowding results in friction and fighting, it might be a bad idea for a small percentage of the population to be armed when the vast majority is not.

We have the concept of martial law for a reason. There are times when things are so abnormal that normal rules don't apply well. An obliterated town may be one of those times.

I would have to think long and hard about giving up my weapons after a disaster, but I can imagine situations where it would not necessarily be a bad thing. I would not enjoy the act, but the good of the community does have to come first. Isn't the good of the community what the constitution is about?

Daniel
Thanks, empath, for re-opening the thread. It's a subject people should think about now and again.

Personally, I would think that people would need personal protection the most when there is no infrastructure that people normally rely on for safety. It's a little hard to call the police for help when the phones are out and the roads are blocked by debris. And if others are going to be engaged in "friction and fighting", I am more likely going to need to protect myself and my family.

If somebody is using a weapon to attack others and take advantage of the chaos, the police should immediately arrest them, confiscate their weapons, and lock them up for trial. This isn't the type of weapons confiscation that people object to. It's when a law abiding individual who is openly carrying a weapon for defense only gets it confiscated that there is a problem. The possession of a weapon is neither good nor bad, it's what you do with it.

It's bad enough that some criminals use the chaos to prey on the victims a second time, there is no reason for the police to disarm the victims ahead of time to make them easier targets for the criminals.

i am an LEO (39years) and if i was ordered to confiscate firearms from the good citizens of my community i would turn in my shield and retire. i would not let ANY body take mine for any reason.

What Kansas law, or other state for that matter, gives local or state government the power to confiscate firearms during/after a civil or natural disaster?

I was reading about his on one of the firearms forums.

Reports from people on the ground, in the worst hit area, is that some firearms are being FOUND in the debris, and are being kept for return to their owners.

Two different people helping the cleanup in Greensburg KS report the same thing: NO confiscation. Just firearms that were in destroyed homes being recovered, and will be returned to lawful owners.

The 2d amendment to the US Constitution doesn't say that you can keep weapons but only if there is no emergency! Rather, it is a right, which is not to be infringed or abridged. As beautiful as the Bay area is I simply can't stand the mumbo jumbo bleeding heart gobbledy gook that comes out of there. Kumbaya dude.

gadget_lover said:

Then I might consider the value VS risk of despondent, distraught, upset and angry newly homeless people carrying firearms. It may make sense to ask law abiding folks to put aside their firearms and trust the authorities to protect them while the infrastructure is being rebuilt. Since it's a scientific fact that overcrowding results in friction and fighting, it might be a bad idea for a small percentage of the population to be armed when the vast majority is not.

Click to expand...

I have infinite confidence in my ability to plan ahead for act in my self-interest vs the government's interest and ability to do so no matter how well-intentioned. Overcrowding seems like it's only going to happen if your disaster preparedness plan depends on (forcefully?) relocating people to poorly-planned camps or temporary settlements very different from the lives they are accustomed to.

I am a contributing member of society with a job, property, and an interest in the good of society that is conveniently wrapped up in my self interest. Criminals, by their very nature, do not act in society's interests, and are, by definition, lawbreakers. The criminals will be armed if it suits them, and may well be emboldened by the thought of a disarmed populace.

goldenlight said:

I was reading about his on one of the firearms forums.

Reports from people on the ground, in the worst hit area, is that some firearms are being FOUND in the debris, and are being kept for return to their owners.

Two different people helping the cleanup in Greensburg KS report the same thing: NO confiscation. Just firearms that were in destroyed homes being recovered, and will be returned to lawful owners.

Click to expand...

Yeah - I was going to say that that is what I heard was happening - IF the police/fire/rescue folks came across a firearm in the wreckage - they would take it, tag it, and bring it in - more to prevent them from being stolen/misused than to take them from their owners.

IF that is true, I have NO problem - so long as they do return them when asked. Just something to watch

KC2IXE said:

Yeah - I was going to say that that is what I heard was happening - IF the police/fire/rescue folks came across a firearm in the wreckage - they would take it, tag it, and bring it in - more to prevent them from being stolen/misused than to take them from their owners.

IF that is true, I have NO problem - so long as they do return them when asked. Just something to watch

Click to expand...

I suspect that is what is happening.

My whole point in starting this thread was just to pass on some email I had received (and to point out that precedent has already been set in New Orleans). The difference is that in New Orleans, firearms were being actively taken from citizens who choose to remain in their own houses. Obviously, this situation is likely different (no house to stay in, by and large).


Still, I must say I was rather taken aback by Empath's (initial) knee-jerk reaction in closing the thread... :thinking:

fnmag said:

The 2d amendment to the US Constitution doesn't say that you can keep weapons but only if there is no emergency!

Click to expand...

Thats what I was going to say. It is not productive to debate whether the right to keep and bear arms is necessary during an emergency, as it improperly places the burden on the law abiding citizen of proving the necessity of gun possession. No proof of necessity is required, as the right exists irrespective of the weather.


Two ways of protecting your family and your stuff after a tornado.

cheers

riffraff said:

I suspect that is what is happening.

My whole point in starting this thread was just to pass on some email I had received (and to point out that precedent has already been set in New Orleans). The difference is that in New Orleans, firearms were being actively taken from citizens who choose to remain in their own houses. Obviously, this situation is likely different (no house to stay in, by and large).


Still, I must say I was rather taken aback by Empath's (initial) knee-jerk reaction in closing the thread... :thinking:

Click to expand...

The only words that were your own in the opening thread was "First it was New Orleans, now it's Kansas... "

Those words were intended to spread anger regarding nothing more than a poorly reported rumor.

Calling a moderator action a "knee-jerk" reaction, besides being in violation of the rules, is a strangely worded "thank you" for re-opening a thread that by it's very purpose was designed to incite. The thread is presently open in spite of you, not because of you. I'm still not giving it much hope for survival, but will be pleasantly surprised if it does.

riffraff said:

I suspect that is what is happening.

My whole point in starting this thread was just to pass on some email I had received ...

Click to expand...

I hope the source of the email was someone you knew quite well, and who you could trust had credible information on the topic.

I really do love my relatives but I often want to take their PCs away when they start forwarding on emails about how; we should all stop buying gas on a givne day to spank the oil companies, or that Bill gates will give me $1000 if I forward the email to another 10 people, or that I can open my locked car door with my cell phone.

Just today I got the same Urban Legend email I was getting years ago from my cousin's wife about how Hillary Clinton snubbed the mothers of troops killed in Iraq. I politely sent her the link to Snopes.com article detailing how this began back in 2000.

It's pretty disgusting actually how some people will go to any lengths imaginable to forward their cause. I'm sorry but if I have to lie about soemthing in order to garner support for it I doubt I'd bother.

:lolsign:



Send the NRA here to while youre at it...
We could use them...


Benny

I'd suspect that to be the more likely scenario. It's just a matter of public safety. I don't think anyone in their right mind would just leave unattended firearms out in the open, any more than they would if they were to find cash just sitting there in the ruins of an impacted dwelling.

But the cynical side of me tells me that sensible precautions just doesn't sell news nor would it provide the fodder for the emotion evoking postings that Empath alluded to earlier.

goldenlight said:

Reports from people on the ground, in the worst hit area, is that some firearms are being FOUND in the debris, and are being kept for return to their owners.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, in times of emergency everyone has the opportunity to make their share of mistakes -- government employees and citizens. The ranks of both are filled from the same pool -- humans. As such they will all be subject to everything that humans are capable of: heroism, greed, compassion, corruption and sometimes just bad judgment.

While I will very nearly always side with the individual on 2nd amendment issues I have much first hand experience with people who were not only poorly prepared for a serious disaster, but then compounded matters by not realizing how their cities' circumstances alter what may be considered acceptable behavior with their firearms. Many fail to appreciate that in a real emergency they may not be able to stand in their doorway with a shotgun and get away with it.

"Discretion is the better part of valor." Unknown

If one tries that while under Martial Law very bad things may happen -- legally. Just knowing whether or not you're under Martial Law may be impossible. Whether you actually know or not may not matter. After the 1906 SF earthquake and three day conflagration that followed the courts ruled that even though the actions taken by the government were illegal because Martial Law was not properly declared the participants were not held to account because they did not know that Martial Law was not in effect. This ruling was of little comfort to those forced to abandon their property at gunpoint or those whose relatives were shot dead under the justification of a state of Martial Law that never existed. These events may be very confusing in real time -- that's part of what makes them disasters.

What I'm trying to say is that the state needs to try harder to insure the protection of the rights of individuals and at the same time those individuals must strive to avoid doing really stupid things with those rights in difficult times.

For the record, Louisiana has also passed a law explicitly forbidding the mass confiscation of privately owned, legal firearms in times of emergency, but I would put very little faith in just another piece of paper. Those kinds of actions were already forbidden by the Constitution when the new law was passed. The new law is more symbolic than anything else. The only thing that will stop that kind of thing from ever happening there again will be the New Orleanians themselves.

ScooterBug,

My hat goes off to you.